Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frist backs 'intelligent design' teaching
AP ^ | 8/19/5 | ROSE FRENCH

Posted on 08/19/2005 1:02:07 PM PDT by SmithL

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution.

Frist, R-Tenn., spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.

"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith," Frist said.

Frist, a doctor who graduated from Harvard Medical School, said exposing children to both evolution and intelligent design "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone. I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation. Nearly all scientists dismiss it as a scientific theory, and critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.

Bush recently told a group of Texas reporters that intelligent design and evolution should both be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."

That comment sparked criticism from opponents, including Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who called Bush "anti-science."

Frist, who is considering a presidential campaign in 2008, recently angered some conservatives by bucking Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research, voicing his support for expanded research on the subject.

Frist said his decision to endorse stem cell research was "a matter of science," but he said there was no conflict between his position on stem cell research and his position on intelligent design.

"To me, I see no disconnect between that and stem cell research," Frist said. "I base my beliefs on stem cell research both on science and my faith.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; anothercrevothread; crevolist; enoughalready; frist; intelligentdesign; notagain; panderingtoignorance; scienceeducation; senatorfrist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 441-443 next last
To: GregoTX; Right Wing Professor
Right Wing Professor;
"What was it? Brain injury, or early Alzheimers?"

You know, I am not certain if there is a creator or not, I have an interest in it, but the condescending attitude and christian bashing I see here is no different than I would see on DU or other lefty sites. When I see that kind of bullying, I cant believe this is a FR posting.

Believe it.

The hatred and intolerance of many in the pro-evolution crowd toward Christians who beleive the Bible is neither surprising nor new.

It doesn't bother me one bit. These people discredit themselves with this sort of nasty rhetoric and are an embarrassment to their side.

Besides, you can relax, the ACLU, DemoRat party and moonbat protesters will never allow ID in the school.

Exactly. Right Wing Professor should find comfort in such company.

221 posted on 08/19/2005 6:53:37 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
How successful have scientific explanations been in settling issues of value and worth and what our purpose should be as human beings?

Science shouldn't even attempt this. It's irrelevent.

None, by definition. Science can only deal with that aspect of reality that can be detected by the senses (or their extensions) and has a quantity and location.

Not necessarily - wouldn't you consider maths a science? Theoretical physics?

The rest of reality is invisible to pure science. I don't know anyone who would like to live in a reality limited by only that which science knows. Do you?

I'm not sure what you mean by the "rest of reality". And I enjoy living in a universe governed by science rather than the whims of a temperamental deity.
222 posted on 08/19/2005 6:54:21 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
What was it? Brain injury, or early Alzheimers?

No it was accepting Christ as my Savior and believing the Word of God.

Your insults and name-calling don't bother me one bit.

As an ex-evolutionist and atheist I was once just as bitter and hatefilled as you are toward believers.

By the way, I was converted more than 30 years ago from atheism and evolution at the same time and haven't doubted the truth of what I believe for one minute since then.

223 posted on 08/19/2005 6:58:02 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: All

I'm tired of fundamentalist Christians playing the victims in these threads. They are in power and are trying to force their mysticism on everyone else through their absurd ID campaign. They deny physical evidence and cry when they don't get equal time in a field that relies entirely on physical evidence. "Evolutionists" - a strange term indeed for someone who accepts the reality of our world - have endured much more bashing than Christians, and frankly, those who deny the earth is as old as it is and that species mutate deserve the little ridicule they receive, particularly when they demand to be taken seriously as a science.


224 posted on 08/19/2005 7:06:47 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I don't want to live in a reality limited by only what science knows. That is why I am a scientist and try to learn more. I also like fiction.

But school biology, chemistry, physics, and math class should be limited to what is actually observable and detectable and reproducible.

Literature, history, religion, music, art; that we can leave open to interpretation and taste and "teach the controversy".
225 posted on 08/19/2005 7:08:14 PM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Borges
As long as they are taught in the appropriate classes. Faith in Bible Study, Science in Science class.

And Evolution in modern mythology class.

226 posted on 08/19/2005 7:11:07 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Natty Boh III

Only thru inference, just like the faith of Evolution.


227 posted on 08/19/2005 7:12:04 PM PDT by keithtoo (Howard Dean's Democratic Party: Traitors, Haters, and Vacillators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
1) How successful have supernatural explanations been in observing and predicting the universe and settling issues of factual disagreement?

Totally unsuccessful.

2) How many scientific theories are dependent upon an unquantifiable and unknowable power that is impossible to observe or predict?

Zero.

228 posted on 08/19/2005 7:13:18 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

You absolutely can infer their lives and their epochs. You cannot infer their evolution, only their existence.


229 posted on 08/19/2005 7:13:44 PM PDT by keithtoo (Howard Dean's Democratic Party: Traitors, Haters, and Vacillators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
From your profile - It appears that we now have the electoral choice between socialism and theocracy.

What a sad state indeed. Frankly, I'm not sure I could pick either one over the other. It's interesting how the political lines are drawn - those that support smaller government and free trade have to align themselves with religious wingnuts. I'm for a recombination of the political party lines - the creationists and postmodernists are strikingly similar, anyway, and belong on the same side.
230 posted on 08/19/2005 7:15:17 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
But I wanted a defender of Rush's less talented brother to answer. Someone who thinks that Scientific explanation somehow doesn't preclude unobservable and unmeasurable forces. A "God of the Gaps" theologists.

But thanks!
231 posted on 08/19/2005 7:21:32 PM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo
You absolutely can infer their lives and their epochs. You cannot infer their evolution, only their existence.

But their epochs of existence have an elaborate structure, a succession of forms, and this pattern of succession constitutes ipso facto evolution. This is what Gould and others have referred to as the "fact of evolution". Of course, the theory that this succession is accounted for by "descent with variation and selection" does remain a theory, even if a well supported theory.

Do you mean to suggest that all the transitions in this elaborate structure of succession of forms were accomplished by some kind of extra-natural intervention? Somehow I don't think that is what "Intelligent Design" is aiming at.

232 posted on 08/19/2005 7:49:00 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; Vive ut Vivas
The natural sciences are limited to the study of natural phenomena but the proposition that the supernatural does not exist is not a matter of science but of metaphysics. The natural sciences by their very nature, being limited to the study of natural phenomena, has nothing to say on the subject. This is were the doctrinaire evolutionists err.

The scientific method does need to posit natural cause in order to form a working hypothesis but research method does not equal reality. As an example, the chemist must posit a chemical reaction in order to form a working hypothesis in chemistry. This does not mean that reality is limited to chemical reactions, he is just limited by his research method. The same is true of the natural sciences as a whole.

There are many reasons to reject the existence of the supernatural, but these are metaphysical propositions, not science.

233 posted on 08/19/2005 7:49:58 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
There are many reasons to reject the existence of the supernatural, but these are metaphysical propositions, not science.

Just as the expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow is a metaphysical supposition.

234 posted on 08/19/2005 8:07:31 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Ah, the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument.

Same old avoidance of the issue, you claim an absolute right, because you consider your position to be absolute fact. The left Winger considers his position to be absolute fact. I happen to think neither of you hold the whole truth.

235 posted on 08/19/2005 8:29:01 PM PDT by itsahoot (Reagan promised to abolish the Dept of Education and the 55 mph Limit. Which was least important?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
If you want to argue for the nonexistence of the supernatural then be honest enough to do so under the rubric of metaphysics; do not hide under the mantle of science. The natural sciences have nothing to say on the matter.
236 posted on 08/19/2005 8:30:20 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Borges
what exactly is a scientific study of prayer?

You being a scientist should have the resources to research the studies.

237 posted on 08/19/2005 8:32:00 PM PDT by itsahoot (Reagan promised to abolish the Dept of Education and the 55 mph Limit. Which was least important?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Yeah, it doesn't matter if someone has an agenda and Darwinism is just wrong.


238 posted on 08/19/2005 8:35:26 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
The natural sciences have nothing to say on the matter.

This is because the NATURAL sciences assume it naively, or at least only concern themselves with the NATURAL as opposed to the supernatural. The unique success of this point of view has very "naturally" pushed the supernatural to the margin.

239 posted on 08/19/2005 8:37:53 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Baltar
Adding the word Science to your argument no more makes it science, then putting on a cape makes you Superman.

And claiming that Darwin is the Super Evolutionist doesn't make evolution science either.

240 posted on 08/19/2005 8:38:34 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 441-443 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson